usurp [none/use name]

Removed by mod

So what's the differences between chattel slavery? Didn't the carribain kill so many slaves through hard labor they had to constantly import more since they didn't expect then to survive and the usa focused on breeding them since they couldn't get any more from Africa because of a ban of some kind? And what about the house and field slaves? That's an example of class. And Europe abolished it before slavery of Africans at least became an industry staple in the motherland at least, the colonies it still happened for a while longer. And the ottomans castrated their slaves, well more than others no?

Then what are you gonna abolish daddy Stalin, the kulaks? Gulags?

If your in Qatar your probably not leaving any time soon.

So peasants are tied to land by a pinky promise and chattel slavery is just awful. Well neither exist in modern society, slavery changed with the times, much like how I think property is a fluid concept then so must be slavery. There's us prison style slavery, sex slavery, wage slavery, there's the slavery that happens to migrants, and you got a few backwaters that still practice serfdom and chattel slavery that we just don't know about. Is that right or was that a bad take?

I haven't had an account that lasts more than a week. I honestly just like challenging what people know and being contrarian. It's the only way you get what I think is truth out of anybody myself included. That brings me to this hot take, Marx's view on property is wrong, not abolishing private property mind you, just his definition of what property is. A gun in most cases is private property and that contradicts what he said about the workers shall not be disarmed. I might as well bring up the parallel it has to the second amendment.

I should probably state that the constitution I view it in the same way I view magna carta. Has some good bits but antiquated. The whole a well armed militia thing means to me that citizens should be armed to fight for the government. What Marx says about workers being armed means to me is the same thing but to fight the government, well ruling class. I think he saw it as a means to overthrow the capitalists, not to promote private gun ownership. If this site is gonna be so asinine about meat and cars and houses then it should make up its mind on the gun issue, either the mods should contradict Marx on gun ownership and say guns bad or admit guns are mostly private property and they don't want to abolish that specific kind of property because they think they can fight a war against the ruling class. Really I don't know, I'm just here to read shitposts and make people angry. But I see a contradiction and I'm gonna point it out as much as possible until I'm banned.

Tools of the master can't be used to tear down his house or something. Is a gun not one of the tools? Also let's add public shared property into the mix with personal and private property. Let's challenge the Marxist view of property with all the other views of property. Are people property? If property is something inherent and a social construct would that always apply to humans or can we and by extension objects transcend the concept of being property? What is propertyless?

Explain the feudal property situation, I'm under the assumption it was a form of slavery and the serfs collective property. And the slavery that occurred in european colonies with non european slaves was a different more private property focused slavery than what happened in eurasian feudalism. And that under capitalism wage slavery is a thing and it's the least harsh of the three with a lot of self determination for the workers. But the thing is people are property and the goal of leftism is to liberate ourselves from being property, or at least get a bigger cage. So what difference does it make if there is a mutual benefit from feudalism? Serfs are still property, and to bring it back to guns, are they not property as well?

Look I agree with the fact guns have their place and it's in the interest of the left to disarm the right so they can't fight back as easily. But that political power coming out of a gun, what type of property is that gun? Would it be the same type of property depending on the wielder? And if cars are to be phased out eventually, shouldn't also guns?

Can you think of a situation when they are not mutually exclusive? Mutually exclusive means they don't intersect, can they intersect? I can think of the line being blurred or possibly being something else entirely.

I think the original comment meant power as in political power, but you know it can have another meaning. Violence and coercion are tools used to increase production and a gun is one of those tools. A gun can also liberate when in the right hands, and it does that by the threat of killing. But what if the gun was not in the equation at all, what power would anyone have to coerce without a weapon? What authority would anyone have without guns?

What's the Marxist view of property, my view of it is obviously different from it. It can't just be a binary personal/private dynamic. Property ownership can be complicated.

Well guns can be used to intimidate labor, so I guess they amplify labor power if by power you mean how much product they can output.

Personally I think the concept of property is fluid, it's a social construct and there's many different types of it. Private, public, personal, communal, single use, non physical, currency, rations, reparations, land, automobiles, taxes, ect. I don't have the patience to list them all. I may just have to write a very poorly worded post about it later.

It seems like wacky ideologies the game. I fucking hate it.

THE THING MARX GOT RIGHT WAS THE ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY! you yourself said a gun is private property. I'm sure this site agrees that meat and cars should be banned, is that not idealism? I don't think the state should give up it's guns so long as the state is ran by the workers, to me that means military. Can you not understand that?

(real nice of you to edit your comment after I reply, still didn't even edit out the part about private gun owners, I don't hate you but fuck just think about what private property is please)

China cracked down on gun ownership in the 2000s. There was a lot of guns, bazookas, grenades lying around from the revolution.

Don't fucking compare banning guns to Rhodesia or Nazi Germany. They did not ban private gun ownership, in fact gun ownership is a symptom of capitalist society. Maybe Marx thought the need for the working class to arm itself was necessary but he also thought England, Germany, and France was where communism was gonna first emerge. I know this site can't say it so I'll say it, MARX WAS WRONG ABOUT GUNS. He got a lot of stuff right, but a single sentence about the workers not surrendering firearms should not be misinterpreted as a full endorsement of private gun ownership, if anything it promotes the creation of a communist militia to fight the private gun owners and the state that upholds their rights.

I think balkanization for the US would be good, I don't think it would result in dozens of mini nazi germanies and south africas emerging. I think it would result in the south becoming a black majority state, I think it would result in indian territory gaining full autonomy, I think mexico would receive the land that was stolen from them historically, I think canada would balkanize along with the us and make the border mores porous, I think all that non inner continental territory we stole would all become independent and get a lot more money from china than it ever did from the usa, I think the threat of a second confederacy would be nonexistent thanks to blacks in the country not ever going to take that shit again. This isn't optimism, I think it would still take a bloody war to create this, but the end result of banning guns might be this and I would take that and 100 wacos if it meant the destruction of the United States. Also Lee Carter is a red haired shit who has the political power of Bernie Sanders, fuck electorialism.

Yeah the fallout universe is fucked up, it's America nuked itself. There's definitely irony in it. But it's not anti-american in any sense, it's a celebration of it, a celebration of the death cult that we though capitalism would bring us when the oil dries up. Mad max is a celebration of Australian culture is it not? And all of this is to not mention the gameplay, it's just loot, shoot, level up stats, help npc or kill npc, game crashes, game is not optimised, download mods to fix game, download mods to make game different, and at that point you ain't even playing fallout anymore. You want a game better than new vegas look no further than bioshock, or prey, or even half life. Open world games are overrated.

Ding dong your wrong.